You know what I’m talking about. You’re walking into the company your firm has just acquired on deal completion day and it hits you. All those promises that were made to the market? You know…. the ones about cost synergies and revenue synergies and the transformative power of the deal? Well, as the newly-appointed CEO you’re the muppet (are we still using that word now?) whose job it is to deliver on all that... Lucky, lucky you.

It’s right about now as your knees start to buckle under the weight of expectation that now rests on your bony shoulders that you would be tempted to pause for breath, to vacillate, to mumble about “business as usual” and “a business review process”. Don’t – that would be wrong. And you’re better than that. Hell, you must have been chosen for the job for some reason, right? Someone, somewhere must have seen a glimmer of talent and potential in your otherwise stable and commonplace career? This, my friend, is your moment to shine. Please don’t blow it. We would all be so disappointed.

And so too would all the employees that are now your responsibility.

Day 1 is where it’s at. It’s when you either set yourself up for success…. or failure. It’s also where most transactions go awry and why the vast majority of deals fail to deliver around the cost of capital.

In my experience, the greatest risk posed by M&A activity to a company’s external reputation is before the transaction has closed. As you go through shareholder and regulatory approvals, a business is subject to a much higher level of scrutiny and debate than typically the case. The questions this raises about the strengths and weaknesses of your business, your ability to deliver on your strategy and your stakeholder relationship all come under significant pressure.

However, the greatest risk to your business’ actual bottom-line is, in my view, during the integration process – the internal distraction that leads to lower productivity, the missed opportunities your competitors are taking advantage of because no-one’s watching the store, and the sheer challenge that successfully integrating a new business presents.

And in all this - what’s so critical about is Day 1…..? Well….

What’s past is prologue…...

What you say right from the very first stages of an integration sets the context for all future engagement with staff. What you said on Day 1 will serve as the point of comparison for everything else you say throughout the rest of the integration. So….

1.     Set the right tone early – having a sense of where you need to be post-integration will help determine what this is

2.     Listen to your stakeholders and anticipate their information needs – both immediately and as the integration proceeds

3.     Remain on the front foot – stay in front by being proactive in communications and having a plan for ongoing engagement

Miss Day 1 and you’ve missed your best window for making an impact….

Post-close, there is a small window of opportunity where employees expect change. Of course everyone knows its Day 1 and all accordingly arrive at work brimming with expectation and eager for news about what the future holds for the organization and for themselves. Often what they get is some version of “please stay focused on your day job and we’ll keep you informed”….

What a waste! The rapt attention of all employees across the business and the new ownership with nothing to say! That kind of approach is like death by a thousand cuts – endless ineffective and nonsense communications as the business itself slowly spirals into a quagmire of directionless torpor.

If change doesn’t start to happen within this actually very tiny window immediately post-close, employees relax back into the way they’ve always done it, and existing behaviours and process become further entrenched. Like barnacles. And have you ever tried to remove barnacles? Trust me. It ain’t easy.

You already know why you’ve bought the business….

You do know why you’ve bought the business, don’t you? You have worked out why the combination makes sense and broadly speaking where you want to take the business moving forward? Because this is what employees want to hear about on Day 1. The way forward and what their place in that will be – broadly speaking.

No-one is expecting a mission statement carved in stone. Nor a detailed roll-out plan setting out all the minutiae of how the integration will proceed. What we’re talking about is the ‘big picture’. Why does the combination of the two businesses make sense and starting to kick-start some momentum in the business – and which will be needed to drive the integration process forward.  

Day 1 is an opportunity to open a dialogue about the future and offering employees an opportunity to be a part of that conversation. In the absence of a future, the only thing left to preoccupy staff is the past – past management, past strategies….

Your best talent (and competitors) won’t wait around…..

You do have a grace period where your best-and-brightest will give you time to get your feet under the desk. But in a surprisingly short space of time, if they are not inspired by what they see, or can’t work out where the company is headed and if they have a future in that, then they will move on very quickly. First impressions are powerful things. Likewise, your competitors are not going to be sitting around cooling their heels waiting for you to figure things out.

IN A NUTSHELL:

1.     Integration should start immediately on Day 1 and the key preparations should be in position well before deal close. Ideally, this is a process that could commence during due diligence.

2.     Integrate quickly where it matters – make (and communicate) the hard decisions early. Think of it like a band-aid – you can rip it off, or slowly, slowly, excruciatingly pull it away... I think I’d know what I’d prefer.

3.     Prepare managers, communications, HR and the integration team as early as possible with the information and tools they need to implement the plan right from Day 1.

An interesting take on the Australia-China CEO Roundtable in Beijing this week by the WSJ's Dinny McMahon in the China RealTime Report on the differences between those represented on the Chinese versus the Australian side.

He writes:

The firepower on the Chinese side – and the investment resources at their disposal – was impressive. While not household names in the West, the executives represent some of the country’s biggest and most internationally active mining, energy, metals and construction companies, airlines and financial institutions, including China Development Bank, which has bankrolled much of China Inc.’s overseas expansion.

Meanwhile the Australian delegation was loaded with lawyers (Mallesons Stephen Jacques and Corrs Chambers Westgarth), consultants (PricewaterhouseCoopers and The Boston Consulting Group) and bankers (Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. and BNP Paribas SA)

In other words, Australia filled half their quota with the financial services companies that have ridden the wave of Chinese investment into Australia.

Possibly.

However, I add that the overall relationship is has three key dimensions:

1. Chinese investment into Australia (yes, in resources, but also property. Agribusiness is likely to be a key target in the future.)
   
2. Australian resources exports to China (we all know the stats - last year Australia supplied 40% of China's coal imports etc)
   
3. Bilateral trade by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) from both sides (mainly in the consumer goods sphere). According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 90 percent of Australian exporters are SMEs - and more Australian SMEs now export to China than the whole of continental Europe. While the terms of trade are dominated by resources for the sheer dollar value of these products, however, the bulk of trade is being done by small companies in anything from textiles and clothing production, education services, diesel emissions testing equipment to prime Australian beef. 
   

McMahon's comment that: "Other than heavy hitters BHP and Rio, Australia doesn’t have a lot of national champions that hold their own in an international arena" is an important observation.

And one that appears to be true.

Why few Australian companies have successfully expanded overseas - and specifically into Asia - is a topic for another time (and by people who have more knowledge of Australian corporate history than I do).

However, where does this leave us in terms of how many senior executives and boards across the spectrum of Australian business have truly practical, in-country, in-depth expertise and experience in Asia? Without a familiarity and engagement with Asia right across our business leadership (as opposed to small isolated pockets in a few companies i.e. those at the above CEO roundtable), how possible will it be to expand our relationships in the region beyond a buyer-seller relationship, and certainly beyond a simplistic preoccupation with just China?

Our economic future - indeed that of the world's - lies with Asia. So once the current generation of CEOs and board members have safety retired to their country villas in Provence, how equipped will the next generation (those that are now division leaders, or directors, or general managers) be to capture these opportunities? Or hopefully at least not turn their back when they come knocking on our door...

How many of our peers can speak an Asian language? How many have in-country experience (beyond spending two weeks on the cocktail circuit in Shanghai - no, this doesn't count)? How many have any proper familiarity with business practices and market opportunities beyond those in Australia?

And are we doing enough to develop these talents? Should we be doing more? Could we be doing anything differently?

What are your ideas?

Could how some large corporations are choosing to react to the climate change debate be another example of the poor risk management strategies that we've seen a spate of lately in Australia? Unexpected profit downgrades anyone?

In my view, it underlines again that good CSR / Sustainability / ESG governance is an uncannily accurate proxy for good management / governance in general. Boards that make decisions based on what worked in 1987 without due understanding or regard for industry trends, changing consumer & stakeholder expectations and what is now just standard global practice should not be surprised when the market trades their shares at a discount.

However, beyond the corporate reaction, what is most concerning about the issue of climate change in Australia is the very nature of the debate. The emotion and populism that are overshadowing the realities of the situation is daunting in the least. Opponents of action on climate change act like they are defenders of a faith - otherwise how on earth have we arrived at a position where its a question of whether we "believe" in climate change or not?! And back to risk management - even it is likely (let alone probable), isn't it best we try and do something to prepare?

It is also faintly ridiculous to say Australia shouldn't be leading the way on this issue. We clearly are not. An increasing number of countries are or have long put in place carbon tax or trading schemes. They are also actively seeking to transition to a low-carbon economy. China is among them.

In the recently announced 12th Five Year Plan (which remains a key macro-economic planning tool), China announced several new carbon and energy targets from 2010 levels, namely:

• Increase the proportion of non-fossil fuels in energy consumption to 11.4 per cent by 2015,

• Reduce energy consumption per unit of GDP by 16 per cent from 2010 levels by 2015, and;
  

• Reduce carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 17 per cent from 2010 levels by 2015.

What is important to understand is that China is not setting these targets for any reason like 'we should' or 'it's the right thing to to' or even 'I believe in climate change'. The one reason China is progressing down this path is pragmatism. Plain and simple.

This pragmatism is built on two key pillars - energy security and economic opportunity. China understands that its booming economy is vulnerable to dependency on foreign sources of energy and raw materials. Clearly, the more it can harness its domestic resources as energy sources - and the more efficiently it can do so - the better. Secondly, China sees a clear economic advantage is being able to develop homegrown clean technologies and green industries. As China becomes less attractive as a manufacturing destination and as its economy matures, the government is keen to move up the value chain from low-cost manufacturing to value-added / high-tech industries. While there are a number of factors that will make this a challenge for China, it is nonetheless a high policy priority for the government. Furthermore, as people become more affluent, there is very little willingness within communities to put with the long-term and very real public health impacts of highly polluting and poorly regulated industries.

This is a policy position that is widely supported by the Chinese people themselves - who want pragmatic policy and progressive change above all else.

We won't pretend that China itself doesn't have a long way to go - problems with connectivity between clean energy projects and the national power grid, misappropriation or wastage of funding, local regulation that's patchy at best and the need just to keep up with the China's insatiable and ever-growing energy needs all present enormous challenges.

However, why China will win out in the end is that the decisions it is making are based on what is practically possible and what makes economic sense for the country. Acting early and effectively on climate change clearly does. Regardless of first impressions, the way China behaved at COP15 in fact bears this out - the Chinese government will not agree to global targets that may compromise its ability to make its own decisions about what's right for China (and that exacerbate its general sensitivity about 'sovereign rights'.)

If we are trying to avoid the necessity of a transition to a low-carbon economy, well, that horse has well and truly bolted So let's not be naive. It is true that we run the risk of jobs moving to China - jobs in green industries, that is. Which are jobs we might actually want to keep here.

The best businesses are characterised by adaptability, innovation and a focus on the future and the outside world. On the other hand, good government is characterised by inclusiveness, predictability and a focus on building consensus through clear and persistent communications. Both are important to the vibrancy of a nation's economy.

But at the end of the day, a board that's not progressive is much more dangerous to long-term shareholder value preservation and creation than a carbon tax.

This week, I found myself having to explain to the leadership of a large public company what a CSR Report was - while trying to hide my incredulity, it gave me pause to consider how many companies in the Australian market still fail to have an awareness of their obligations when it comes to CSR and Sustainability. It also belies a worrying level of disconnect with what best practice is and how core stakeholders (not least of which consumers and employees) expect a company to behave.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - CSR is not a nice-to-do added extra you turn your mind to when all your performance and profit targets have been met. CSR should form part of the fundamental assumptions your business strategy and operating policies are based on. It is amazing that even from a minimum risk management perspective, how many business people STILL don't (or won't) understand the real risks that a lax view on CSR issues poses to their very mandate to operate.

I attended a number of end-of-year business forums and functions in Sydney and Melbourne over the past few months, and was surprised by how dismissive various business leaders were on questions like climate change and whether ESG (Environment, Social, Governance) issues were something investors cared enough to ask about at results time.

If there isn't even a broad understanding of how these issues impact their business, then a lack of interest in CSR reporting is of little surprise.

However, there is also a bit of a Catch-22 here - if companies don't undertake a CSR report then they are unlikely to have much of an understanding of a) how much they lag behind industry best practice, b) what problems there may be in their operations and c) how their stakeholders view their company when ti comes to CSR-related issues.

This highlights what, in my mind, is the most valuable thing about CSR reporting - the process itself.

There are a number of key reasons for this:

1. Every CSR Report is the end of a process

When done right - namely through a research and data gathering process based on the GRI framework - the benefits in heightening awareness of sustainability issues can be huge. By actually having to ask these questions and find out the answers, a company can build a clear picture of the issues that are impacting its business and can lead to better decision-making at the strategic level.

2. A CSR Report means two-way stakeholder engagement that actually goes somewhere

Given the breadth of input required from right across the organization, CSR reporting can also lead to much better employee engagement. And not simply just around a company's sustainability goals, but also with the company's overall vision and values. We all want to work for a company with can feel proud of, and that we know is committed to doing the right thing. The positive impact of action of sustainability on employee engagement should not be underestimated.

Secondly, a CSR report that's done well will also go through a process of engagement with external stakeholders, from suppliers to consumer to NGOs to unions. In my experience, where real stakeholder issues arise, its often due to a disconnect in expectations between the various parties and a lack of mutual understanding. Undertaking a CSR report not only is important in assessing a company's operational performance, but also helps to bring the 'outside in' and deliver executive with important intelligence on how what stakeholder's expectations may be and how they perceive the company's performance so far. It's hard to arrive at this understanding if you never talk to your stakeholders. 

3. A CSR Report is a platform for ongoing engagement

Undertaking a CSR report is a signal the company is mindful of the issues that matter to stakeholder and that they are committed to future CSR reports. Especially with CSR reporting becoming more integrated with social media, I am hopeful that companies will become better at using the finished report as a platform for ongoing stakeholder engagement. The report should not be a static printed document, but should be ideally located in HTML on a company's corporate website and heavily embedded with links and usefully shareable. A CSR report is a repository of information, but it should be a hub with radials, instead of a destination that leads nowhere else.

What else have I missed?

Obviously this is not one of the most earth-shattering posts to break my "blog drought," but here is it. Predictably, I've resolved to do more with my Posterous in 2011, and I hope to  find some things that are interesting enough to talk about on communications and public relations, particularly around investor relations, CSR and Sustainability, social media and China.

Happy New Year 2011!

In his post “HP and Palm: announcing an acquisition social media style,” Dominic Jones discusses how “while HP’s announcement… was made via the usual website postings, PR wire release, analyst conference call, and regulatory  filings, the most significant publicity and attention around the announcement was driven by the company’s digital corporate communications team.”

The post also dissects HP’s smart use of its Twitter announcement and how the different components contribute to the overall success of the campaign, as well as the team’s strategic use of the different platforms and tools that exist in the online space.

Source: IR Web Report

I like the post because it shows how digital media tools can really help providing stakeholders with the information they need to have a better, more informed conversation about a particular piece of news or issue. Posting materials on platforms such as Scrib’d and SlideShare makes it more ‘accessible’, more ‘searchable’ and more ‘shareable’ – for now and for later, instead of getting buried on a companies’ corporate site, and never seen again…. If Google is everyone’s new homepage, then putting materials on these kinds of sites makes it more likely they’ll pop up in the future when people (investors, media, prospective employees etc) are searching on your company’s name.

While I think this campaign was particularly successful partly because the tech audiences that were going to be most interested in the announcement already prefer to receive, find and share news and information from online and digital channels, it does show how powerful incorporating social media and digital tools into traditional financial communications can be. And - equally importantly - how the regulatory and disclosure issues can in fact be negotiated successfully in social media strategies.

It really all comes down to knowing where your audiences already ‘play’ and going there to take part in the conversation. This is – to my mind – one of the issues with just relying on IR sites. While they do serve an important regulatory and compliance function, they invariably exist as a island, cut off from the various places where communities might be spending their time, or talking about the company, or issues relevant to the company. There are some notable exceptions – Dell Shares is a well-known one that comes to mind pretty quickly.

After all, social media shouldn’t be a separate strategy – what it should be allowed to do is support and augment a company’s full range of communications functions.

The recent publication by the Economist Intelligence Unit, ‘The climate for Chinese M&A abroad,’ helps to provide greater clarity on the real picture of Chinese outbound direct investment (ODI).

From their analysis of 172 deals undertaken by Chinese companies between 2004 and November 2009, they found a number of the main characteristics of Chinese M&A deals:

•  Almost half of China’s outbound M&A transactions are driven by the need to support the country’s growing demand for energy and natural resources, followed by the desire to access new markets and technology, with potential capital gains far down the list of priorities.
• While most Chinese acquisitions were focused on deals in Hong Kong’s financial services industry, Australia was the next most favoured destination, with 35 deals or 18 per cent of the total (including withdrawn deals), with Australia attracting the highest amount of investment at US$28 billion, or one-fifth of the total. Unsurprisingly, deals were overwhelmingly concentrated in the metals and mining sector.
• Outbound M&A remains dominated by SOEs, with an overwhelming majority of China’s outbound M&A transactions (81 per cent) made by state-owned entities.
• To date Chinese outbound investors have shown a desire to buy a controlling influence (though this appears to be changing), with half the number of deals involving 50-100 per cent ownership of the targets.

Interestingly, the US is by far the country perceived as the most challenging place for Chinese firms to make acquisitions, with Australia not even in the top ten of the hardest nations:

Influence of Government Policy

According to the EIU’s report, official government policy has a clear influence on outward investment: 51 per cent of survey respondents say it encourages them to undertake overseas investment. In the past, the government has been apprehensive about the ability of Chinese companies to manage overseas investments and at the idea of possible embarrassment or hurt to national pride if a bid is unsuccessful - hence regulatory approval is needed for overseas investment made by mainland-registered entities. However, this anxiety has waned as the Chinese government seeks to encourage ODI that furthers its own policy agenda. In line with this, regulations have been steadily loosened since the government formally announced its “go out” or “go global” policy.

Critical Elements to M&A Success

Chinese executives acknowledge their lack of overseas experience as a critical factor in M&A success, with 82 per cent of respondents “identified lack of management expertise in handling outbound investment as the biggest challenge for Chinese companies.” It is not surprising then that many respondents said they hoped to leave the existing management in place at their acquired companies and the ultimate aim of their integration, many companies said, is to use the acquisition to “help the parent company learn.”

Lessons from failed deals

The deals that failed may be more instructive for Chinese companies about how to improve the chances of a transaction’s success. Notably, lack of communication is a major obstacle.

An obvious aspect of Chinese ODI is the high-profile nature of many of the deals, and the political and public environment this creates around the transaction. The EIU reports remarks that, “Advisers and counterparties from Washington to Canberra pointed to a need for Chinese investors to take a less narrow, procedural approach to investment and look at the bigger picture—to present the commercial and economic rationale for their acquisitions and a clear plan of what they will do with them—and also to explain who they are and what role, if any, the Chinese government plays in their decision-making. They should be prepared to explain these things to all stakeholders—politicians, media, communities, employees—even if a deal does not face regulatory scrutiny.”

Chinese companies must do a much better job of communicating to government officials—and the public—what the economic rationale for the transaction is and how market factors, not politics, are driving it. By introducing more transparency, key stakeholders are able to understand more clearly about the commercial motivations and decision-making process behind the deal.

This, however, is a difficult obstacle for Chinese SOEs to overcome, given their structure and long-standing methods of operations.

Increasing SOE’s flexibility and rapidity of response to market

In a planned economy – which we must remember that Chinese was until a relatively short time ago - public sector activity was carried out by state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Since the market reforms, SOEs have been in a state of transition, where old and new institutions co-exist. One the one hand, modernising reforms have pushed SOEs to develop market-based strategies. While, on the other, close ties with the government offer numerous privileges, but also additional responsibilities that can put SOEs in a difficult position. Maintaining a well-balanced relationship with authorities can be a significant challenge for Chinese SOEs, as they simultaneously try to transform themselves into a commercially-minded enterprise at the same time as meeting the government’s expectations for assisting with the realisation of their policy agenda.

However, every process in a SOE is informed by China’s former planned economy, from theoretical to practical aspects, from management methods to job titles. Speaking generally, this makes many SOEs not only inefficient, but unused to having to respond to changes in market conditions or demands. This inflexibility is the number one challenge Chinese SOEs must overcome if they want to get deals over the line in circumstances where they are competing against another bidder, or where there are concerns about a deal from key stakeholders.

When confronted with opposition, the first line of attack is to engage directly with stakeholders and communicate the benefits of the deal, the motivation for the investment, future plans for the company, and to have a platform to address head-on the basis for their concerns. However, SOEs generally don’t have much of a history of pro-active engagement with even domestic Chinese media, and when confronted with the more adversarial and inquiring international media, they tend to be unwilling to engage at all.

This is a big problem.

Without the Chinese bidder getting out there and ‘selling’ the deal to key publics, of which media (particularly business and finance media) are an influential part, then deals are judged based on existing fears and stereotypes of Chinese state-owned (or controlled) companies, instead of on the commercial and business merits of the deal.

Chinese investments can be a good news story for the target company, and the host country’s economy. But without anyone out there telling this story, this cannot get across.

There's a few draft posts in the pipeline which are coming soon, but to keep things kicking along in the interim, here's a random weekend post of some pictures from a really interesting spot my friend, Helen, took me to today...

Its in the old tram depot at the end of the old line along Glebe Point Rd, and the shed and the old trams inside have become a site for graffiti art... I don't really know that much about it, but it was pretty awesome inside (not that you can really tell from the crappy photos - apologies!)

Sent from my BlackBerry....

So, I've been "home" in Australia for a week now, and so far, so good (touch wood). The sky is bluer than I remember, the sea warmer and the people more friendly, more beautiful and just generally more awesome. The view from behind these rose-coloured glasses is warm and fuzzy, and I fully intend on enjoying every last second while it lasts..... and I've been told not to expect it to last too long.....

Catching up with 'long-lost friends' over the past few days - many of whom have also spent extended chunks of their own lives working overseas - it's given me an excellent chance to talk to them about their experiences repatriating to Australia. Being the worldly, intelligent mob that they are, they had some interesting insights to impart, which I'm going to try and take on board as I navigate my own repatriation and subsequent settling back into life in Oz.

Some of the things they said that resonated most....

1. Try not to jump straight back into work

Especially if you are moving back to a new city, or even your 'old' city but after several years away, it can be easy for work to become your 'everything' if you let it. Coming straight back to a job, or finding a new position quickly is great, but it can mean that friends are your work colleagues, going out on a Friday night is a few drinks at the bar next door... to work... with co-workers, and your exercise routine is the corporate triathlon team. Many find it takes quite some time - up to and over 12 months - re-adjusting to work culture in Australia and that it's quite demanding, so it's important to have some 'weekend friends' to go with your weekend clothes that you can escape to (and, as we all know, its always best to vent about co-workers to people outside the office......)

2. Be proactive about 'making' new friends

This piece of advice is not new i.e. be ready for things to have changed with your old circle of friends, things won't be like they used to, blah blah. But, yes, it's true. You've spent three years in some Soviet-style shoe-box apartment in Xi'an missing Sunday afternoons down the pub with Jack and Harry. Except you come back and Jack and Harry are now both married with kids and haven't seen each other in six months.

So, in order to fill those blank spots in your social calendar this means.... making new friends. When you're an expat this is easy - because there's usually a significant similarly-internationally-minded population around your new neighbourhood who also just arrived in Bangkok, or Tokyo, or Irkutsk, and who knows no-one and is also looking for cool people to hang out with on a Saturday night. But this is not so much the case back at home, where a surprising number of people formed their friendship circles in university, or high school, or primary school, and with a few exceptions made for the odd work-mate or next-door-neighbour picked up along the way, that's how they've remained pretty much ever since. And, thanks, we love your resume, but we simply don't have any openings for new friends at the moment.

Be prepared to step outside your comfort zone and be a joiner / the guy that shows-up to things for a while - volunteer lifesaving, French classes, tweet-ups. This also helps with the first point above - making sure you have a work / life balance.

3. Downplay the geographical-specificity of your resume, up-play the transferable aspects of your experience

One thing a lot of people have warned me about is that employers / recruiters in Australia can be purely focused on local market experience, to the exclusion of all else. I think this is true to either a greater or lesser degree for most places around the world, and certainly when I recruited someone for my team in Shanghai I naturally wanted to feel assured they would be effective in the China market. This was also true when presenting credentials to clients - showing case studies from the US, no matter how relevant they were to the project or brief, would inevitably be greeted with a 'yes, but, what have you done in China.....?'

When looking for a new job when repatriating, use your experiences overseas to highlight certain skill-sets or know-how, instead of framing them in terms which are too linked to a specific overseas market.

4. Be realistic about time-frames

It's going to take a while to get (and feel) settled. Plan for this and make sure you have enough of a financial buffer to ease the transition, and to give yourself that extra bit of time before you absolutely have to be working again.

5. Be nice to yourself (!)

You are moving house, changing jobs (if not careers), transferring locations, etc etc all at once. It's not meant to be easy. Resist comparing yourself to any imaginary yardstick or stop-watch in your head telling you when you need to have everything sorted by. Relax. Take a deep breath. And take it one step at a time.

I first started to traveling to China ten years ago, and have been living here since January 2002. One of my foremost memories from when I first arrived is that I could never go anywhere without being accosted every twenty paces by strangers on the street wanting to be my "friend" (that, and being followed by a small crowds at the supermarket, watching to see what I put in my basket....).

Usually my new "friends" wanted a 'native speaker' to practice English with, often it was curiosity at something (a foreigner) that was still a novelty, sometimes it was for help getting a visa, or changing money into USD.... Generally foreigners and foreign things were "treated" to a kind of doe-eyed adoration, which was heady in its credulity.

It is true that in China foreigners arrive very much as our nationality first, and then as ourselves the individual. However, over the last ten years I've felt the distance at which me myself the person follows me the 'foreigner' in China has become greater and greater, to the point that in many relationships with peers and associates that it's like it never arrives at all. Our interactions are encased in the framework of Chinese nationalism v. Western imperialism, and my opinions and actions are measured by that anachronistic yardstick. The above post at ChinaSolved points to some of the ways this translates into a complex and shifting professional environment those of us who are non-Chinese.

This is not to say that hostility is necessarily worse any than blind admiration. However, in my tumultuous affair with all things China that I've indulged myself in for the past decade, it's as if I've gone from childish crush to an unhealthy and immature passive-aggressive idee fixe. 

And I wonder if in my lifetime whether I'll ever get to have an adult relationship with this the subject of such long-standing unrequited passion?